Henry: We must look at big picture of city's red-light cameras

Since it is Sunday and I was raised Catholic, I gotta make a confession. I recently got my first red-light camera ticket from the city of Amarillo.

I’d like to say I was doing my best impression of Burt Reynolds in his black Trans Am running blocker for Jerry Reed, but I just didn’t notice the yellow light.

My reward was an envelope in the mail containing a nice picture of the back end of my car (one more speck of dirt around the bumper/license plate and I might have escaped) and a ticket for $75.

I plan on paying the ticket, but if I don’t — well, what is the city going to do about it?

Not a heck of a lot.

Thanks to the Texas Legislature, cities with red-light cameras have little, if any, ability to do anything to motorists who treat a red-light camera ticket like junk mail and file it in the appropriate receptacle.

“(The city) does not have a lot of teeth in this area,” Amarillo City Attorney Marcus Norris said.

Toothless would be more like it.

Confirming what might have been an urban myth to some Amarillo residents, the city can’t do much to red-light camera scofflaws.

“The Legislature restricted the cities’ ability to collect (red-light camera fines) in an effort to prove that this was not about money, it was about safety,” Norris said.

It seems the state was not convinced that cities were truly committed to increasing traffic safety with red-light cameras, so lawmakers basically put on the brakes.

So ... if you don’t pay your red-light camera fine, the city cannot report this information to a credit bureau, cannot issue an arrest warrant and the violation cannot appear on your driving record.

There is a $25 late fee, but you probably aren’t going to pay that, either.

There is the opportunity for cities to enter into an agreement with counties to stop motorists who receive a red-light camera ticket from being able to register their vehicle, but that has not happened in these parts.

“Thusfar, our counties have been reluctant to join the city in such a program,” Norris said.

In this case, the hypocritical aspect of state government is ironic.

Since when is the state — which gets a split of red-light camera revenue — opposed to a law or ordinance being “about the money?”

We all know the state has never approved legislation that was motivated by monetary gain (ahem).

Besides, in a way, red-light cameras are about the money.

What other penalty should cities impose upon red-light runners? Throw ’em in the city clink? Impound their vehicle? Make them attend city commission meetings, which could be considered cruel and unusual punishment?

The city imposes monetary fines for a wide array of violations, from littering to unkempt yards to unsupervised animals.

And speaking of money, Amarillo used red-light camera money to pay for traffic lights at the intersection of Hillside and Soncy roads, which reasonable people will agree was much-needed (the state requires red-light camera money it does not bogart from cities to be used for traffic safety.)

I plan on paying my red-light camera fine, but shouldn’t there be a consequence if I don’t?

A pat on the back

To Tim Tebow: Pile on Tebow for his quarterbacking skills, but he made the only decision he could when he opted not to appear at a church in Dallas known for the controversial views of a pastor. There is just no need to wade into that mess, and I don’t blame him for not wanting the hassle. By the way, Tebow is scheduled to appear in Amarillo on March 21 at Trinity Fellowship Church. There shouldn’t be any problems here.

A kick in the pants

To rape comments: A state lawmaker in Colorado feels the need to apologize for recent comments about women not being capable enough to use a gun under the threat of rape, while a Colorado university puts out a list of nonsensical “tips” for women to prevent rape, including urinating and vomiting. Do us all a favor — how about we leave the rape commentary to people in law enforcement and/or counseling?